68361999v1

B307452

I

N

T

HE

C

OURT

O

F

 A 

PPEAL OF THE

S

TATE OF

C

 ALIFORNIA 

 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE

V

ALERIE

H

ANEY

,

Plaintiff and Petitioner,

v.

S

UPERIOR

C

OURT FOR THE

S

TATE OF

C

ALIFORNIA

,

 

C

OUNTY OF

L

OS

A

NGELES

,

Respondent,

C

HURCH OF

S

CIENTOLOGY

I

NTERNATIONAL AND

R

ELIGIOUS

T

ECHNOLOGY

C

ENTER

,

Defendants and Real Parties in Interest

L

OS

 A 

NGELES

C

OUNTY

S

UPERIOR

C

OURT

C

 ASE

N

O

.

 

19STCV21210 H

ONORABLE

R

ICHARD

J.

 

B

URDGE

,

 

D

EPARTMENT

37

RESPONSE TO AMICUS LETTER OF NATIONAL CRIME VICTIM BAR ASSOCIATION

SCHEPER KIM HARRIS LLP

*WILLIAM H. FORMAN (B

 AR

N

O

. 150477) DAVID C. SCHEPER (B

 AR

N

O

. 120174) MARGARET E. DAYTON (B

 AR

N

O

. 274353) 800

 

W

EST

S

IXTH

S

TREET

,

 

18

TH

 

F

LOOR

 L

OS

 A 

NGELES

,

 

CA 

 

90017-2701 (213)

 

613-4655

 

• FAX:

(213)

 

613-4656 wforman@scheperkim.com

 A 

TTORNEYS FOR

D 

EFENDANT AND

R 

EAL

P 

 ARTY IN

I 

NTEREST 

 

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERN TION L

 

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER MITCHELL LLP

ROBERT E. MANGELS (B

 AR

N

O

. 48291) *MATTHEW D. HINKS (B

 AR

N

O

. 200750) 1900

 

 A 

 VENUE OF THE

S

TARS

,

 

7

TH

F

LOOR

 L

OS

 A 

NGELES

,

 

C

 ALIFORNIA

90067-4308 (310) 203-8080

 

• FAX

:

 

(310) 203-0567 mhinks@jmbm.com

 A 

TTORNEYS FOR

D 

EFENDANT AND

R 

EAL

P 

 ARTY IN

I 

NTEREST 

 

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER

 

   D  o  c  u  m  e  n   t  r  e  c  e   i  v  e   d   b  y   t   h  e   C   A   2  n   d   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t  o   f   A  p  p  e  a   l .

 

 2

68361999v1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................5

 

II. RESPONSE TO AMICUS BRIEF OF NATIONAL CRIME VICTIM BAR ASSOCIATION ............................... 10

 

 A.

 

 Amicus Curiae Are Limited to the Issues and Evidence Presented by the Parties to the  Appellate Proceedings ............................................... 10

 

B.

 

NCVBA’s Amicus Letter Fails to Establish that

Petitioner Has Properly Alleged a Claim  Against Real Parties, Viable or Otherwise ............... 11

 

C.

 

NCVBA’s Arguments Concerning the Nature of

the Arbitration Fail to Address the Actual  Agreement and Are Therefore Baseless ................... 12

 

D.

 

NCVBA’s Arguments Concerning Compelled

Religious Arbitration Are Not Properly Before This Court and Should Be Rejected .......................... 16

 

E.

 

NCVBA Fails To Establish That Guidance on  Any Issue Is Needed on Writ Review ....................... 17

 

III. CONCLUSION ..................................................................... 18

 

   D  o  c  u  m  e  n   t  r  e  c  e   i  v  e   d   b  y   t   h  e   C   A   2  n   d   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t  o   f   A  p  p  e  a   l .

 

 3

68361999v1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases

California Bldg. Indus. Ass’n v. State Water Res.

Control Bd.

, 4 Cal. 5th 1032 (2018) ......................................................... 11, 18

Conference of Evangelical Methodist Church v. Evangelical Methodist Church 

, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (N.D. Ga. 2011) ..................................... 14

Easterly v. Heritage Christian Sch 

., 2009 WL 2750099 (S.D. Ind. 2009) .......................................... 14

Eggert v. Pac. States Sav. & Loan Co.

, 57 Cal. App. 2d 239 (1943) ....................................................... 11

Garcia v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Org., Inc.

, No. 8:13-CV-220-T-27TBM, 2018 WL 3439638 (M.D. Fla. July 17, 2018) .......................................................... 16

Gear v. Webster 

, 258 Cal. App. 2d 57 (1968) ....................................................... 15

Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.

, 28 Cal. 3d 807 (1981) ................................................................ 16

Headley v. Church of Scientology International 

, 687 F (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 17

Hosanna Tabor v. Equal Empl. Opp. Comm’n 

 (2012) 565 U.S. 171 ................................................................... 15

Independent Assn. of Mailbox Center Owners, Inc. v. Superior Court 

, 133 Cal. App. 4th 396 (2005) .................................................... 19

   D  o  c  u  m  e  n   t  r  e  c  e   i  v  e   d   b  y   t   h  e   C   A   2  n   d   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t  o   f   A  p  p  e  a   l .